November 7, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Horrible dating "trends" that makes Joe lose his mind
- Pelosi retiring & S.T.V.s
- Greg Abbott's tariff & Anastasia Bowden talks to A&G
- Toy Hall of Fame, a you suck text & Tesla
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Show, Getty Armstrong and
Getty and Key Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
If there is no deal to reopen the government, the
FAA's mandating airlines reduced flights by up to ten percent
at forty of the country's busiest airports.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Multiple airline officials.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Now tell me the Trump administration will start this off
at about a four percent cut, then ramp this up
to ten percent through next week.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
So, yeah, it's four percent today, a couple hundred flights.
If the shutdown continues, it'll go up up. By next Friday,
it'll be forty five hundred flights. And so it started today,
and we'll keep our eye on that and have more
on that later.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
Here.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
I'm strong Eyetty store is open for Christmas season. I
get uncomfortable talking about this.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
I don't know why.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Something about having my name on thing you buy for
Christmas makes me uncomfortable, even though I know a lot
of you want it, and you get people are fans
of the show and they would like it. But we
now have Armstrong in Getty pickleball paddles, among things wait
a minute, all the things in our story. A minute,
you go to Armstrong and getdy dot.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Com on one of those coffee mugs, water bottles. I'm
telling you the Fioliican party t shirts.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
I want a hoodie that says starve the Lazy, That's
what I yes. So it's Friday. I don't know if
that means you're more likely to date or wish you
had a date. Probably, but it seems like a good
time to check in on hot dating trends with Katie Green.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Katie Jeez. I set it up like a cable news segment.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, that was great.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
This is from the USA Today talking about dating trends
have reached new lows this year. One of the new
ones that we haven't talked about is called throning.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Well, let's let's start with shreking, the one we have
talked about, just to get it out of the way.
That is, you intentionally date. It's usually women dating guys.
Intentionally dated guy you don't find attractive, like he's a
Shrek looking character, because you think he'll treat you better, right,
which is one of the worst things I've ever heard
in my life. Because he's so he's feels like he's
(02:21):
so lucky to have you, he will treat.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
You to hang on to you. Yes, yes, that's a
great basis for a healthy relationship. Yes, that'll go great.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
So the fact that you are god every bit of
every phrase that comes to mind. I'm horrified by the
fact that you are lowering your standards because you think
he'll be feel so lucky to have you that he
treats you better than someone else. Is about as disgusting
a philosophy as I can imagine. But that's shreking. Okay,
(02:52):
So now what the hell is throwning?
Speaker 4 (02:54):
So throning is when you date someone to raise your
own social status. So the goal is to land a
partner with clout so that your own image gets a boost.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
I think that's all. Every celebrity in the world knows
what that's about, right.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
That's probably well, it's depends on how much if that's
your main motivation. Obviously that's an odd way to go
about getting relationships. But I think in general people want
to be in a relationship with somebody that is, you know,
(03:31):
a good a good example of society, right, I mean,
isn't that just in general you're hoping you date somebody
that if your friends or family met them, they think, well,
they are very they're very you know, contributing member of society.
Where it's more calculating than that, where that crosses into throning,
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Yeah, I take this.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
This came from some TikToker who talks about dating says
if a person seems overly focused on your status or
your social circle and changes their behaviors towards you, depending
upon what whether you're in public or private, this can
indicate throning.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Yeah, many years ago, I was driving a really nice
car at the time, and I had a girl in
like the second date or whatever, says something to me.
I picked her up in a different vehicle than my
really nice car, and she said, I'd kind of prefer
to be seen in your.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Other car when you pick me up.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
And I thought, Oki, whoa, this isn't a good idea.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
The next one they have here is bank seeing, which
derives its name from the elusive street artist Banksy. Like
a baffling Banksy art piece. Bank seeing in a relationship
involves slowly withdrawing emotionally from your partner without telling them
what you're doing.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
All right, this is for Dack why are you doing this?
Is this to make them want you more? Or are
you just trying to get out of the relationship.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
This seems like a really elusive way to get out
of a relationship.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
This is what they're calling bank seeing now only withdrawing
because the fire is gone. That's called a relationship ending.
I'm gonna speak for our listeners. This is ridiculous. Everything
doesn't need a name. Everything isn't a trend. Slowly deciding
this isn't for me is not a trend. It's been
a trend since we crawled from the primordial ooze. I'll
(05:17):
not have this foolishness.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
What Joe is doing is called rage talking right popular
thing now, it's a trend on middle.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Age right cold warrior? Do you mean nothing to do
with the Cold War?
Speaker 3 (05:29):
When middle aged men get fed up with modern trends,
they do something called rage talking tread.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Tread. When someone branded people inhaling, they're exhaling what they're
done inhaling its.
Speaker 4 (05:43):
Tread only our listeners to see how red you're getting.
This is incredible. Yes, just a time for the Christmas
was supposed to be fun. Yeah, right, you're supposed to
lighten things up here, when someone employs the bank sying technique,
it says they start destroying the relation and ship before
the other person even sees it coming, because banksy selfish.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Again, you know, I'm sorry this this is dumb. Yeah right,
I had great promise, Like so many of my schemes
in life, it had great promise at the beginning. I think,
I think, I hope. Shreking is not a very popular thing, but.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
It's the only one that's stuck around for a while,
the shreking. I haven't heard any of these until this
stupid article.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
You are such can we just awful? These things under
the heading here's what shallow stupid people do? You know what?
We're too tolerant as a society. You've got to be
less tolerant. That's ugly, it's stupid, it's shallow. I weep
for you that you didn't have a healthy relationship that
you can use to model what your relationships are going
(06:44):
to be like. If you're any of those things. Stop
being it. Michael just stopped calling it a trend. Michael
or Jack?
Speaker 4 (06:50):
Are you guys both getting joy out of the fact
that all of this is happening While Joe is wearing
his cut the crap T shirt because that is yeah, precisely.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Yeah, man, So.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Everything being online in social media and people communicating with
each other. I suppose, I suppose it would make sense.
I hadn't thought about this before. This is just off
the top of my head. But if our politics has
gotten dominated by the worst among us, why wouldn't relationship
trends get dominated by the worst among us for exactly
(07:25):
the same reasons.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah, the worst or dopiest or shallowest among us.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Yeah, so there are there are two more on this list,
but I don't want Joe to explode.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
So I'm just gonna.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Take one edge of blood pressure pill and then Katie
will finish this off.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
The go ahead quickly. They're dumb, like a medical procedure.
The sooner we started, the sooner. It's over ZIP coding,
all right, I can't even take it. Yeah, I see
the reef version of.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
That, where people on dating apps will either stick only
to their ZIP codes or stick only outside.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Of their zip codes. What the hell?
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, I can say see sticking two years zip code
just because you want somebody near those.
Speaker 4 (08:07):
But there are other people that though, Yeah, but there
are other people that look specifically away from their own
zip code, which I would make more sense.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
To me, might fit in with the that might fit
in with the stat we had a while back of
the percentage of people, particularly men on online dating sites,
who are freaking married.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
I was told by a woman the other day, she said,
you would not believe how many married men are on
the dating.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Website she's on.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
She meets them and they talk and they're we're gonna
meet forgotty or whatever it is. And she does a
little research on them and turns out they they're married,
or she comes across husbands.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Of her friends, Oh gosh, and has to go tell
their friends.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Hey, you know, I hate to tell you this, but
your husband's on match dot Com looking for dates claiming
is single.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
I mean, that is so crazy.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
There is an entire dating service dedicated to as Oh yeah,
sure this, I mean it came this came out years ago.
But Ashley Madison, Yeah, but the well, the idea is
just gross. You know, life is short have an affair
as their tagline.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Practically the oldest thing in the world is the idea
of an affair. But the idea that you're going on
to a dating website with your picture and everything while
you're married, claiman your single How do you think that's
going to end you?
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Moron?
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Not to mention the fact that it's an awful thing
to do. Yeah, embarrass your spouse horribly publicly.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I just I can't even believe that. I mean, so,
if that's true, and like I said, I know somebody
who's had this specific experience multiple times.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
If that's going on, well maybe these other stupid things
are happening too, zeppelining or whatever we were talking about.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Here's the last one, Jodey deep breath. Okay, monkey barring.
It alludes to how in dating, people move from one
partner to the next partner, only letting go of the
previous once they've once they've sealed the deal.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
With their next one.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
I think that's a common emotional technique. Yeah, unfortunate, unfortunate also,
but it's called monkey barring. Now that's the trend. Not
a good idea according to any therapist. But monkey barring. Yes,
not everything needs name. It's not a trend.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yeah, I promise an hour job until you got another
one lined up.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Okay, all right, okay, well job's okay. I don't know
about the relationships that now, if you know you're done.
You gotta tell them you got it. That's true, you
got it. That's not cool. Yeah, I promise an hour
three to get to this New York Times article about
people that are in relationships at their AI chatbots. This
is a serious piece of journalism. It's highly troubling, and
(10:44):
I think it's going to be a huge topic for
the next several decades, as long as mankind can survive it.
And that might be just like ten years fifteen, so
we got about fifteen years. Maybe you're online a lot,
looking up moronic trends that don't exist, and you'll be
attacked to buy scammers, and that's why we recommend Webroot
Total Protection. It's lightning fast, anivirus I did any protection,
(11:07):
dark web monitoring, secure VPN, and unlimited cloud backup, all
those things in one.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
This doesn't have a clever name. They're just called a thief.
They want to steal from you, and you can avoid
that with Webroot Total Protection. Protect your whole family, which
is really cool, even the kids and seniors. It's easy
to install a no annoying pop ups, and it scans
six times faster than the competition.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
And Wowser's listen to this deal. Get CyberSecure with sixty
percent off webroot total protection not only at webroot dot
com slash armstrong. That's sixty percent off, but only through
our magical link. Don't wait. Live a better digital life
at webroot. Go to webroot dot com slash armstrong right now.
That's webroot dot com slash armstrong. Offer ends soon webroot
(11:52):
dot com slash Armstrong.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
The Secretary of War announced another boat got blowed up
down near by Venezuela. I think that's number fifteen or
something like that over the last several weeks.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Yikes, they're serious about it. I got a few details
on that, A lot of other stuff on the way.
Stay here. Some more news from Washington today.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Nancy Pelosi announced that she won't seek reelection and plans
on retiring in two years at the age of eighty six,
or as it's known in congressional terms your tweens.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
And no kidding, eighty six. Damn near ninety. That's wild.
I wasn't paying attention wild Nancy Pelosi. She'll be eighty
six when she's doing eighty six. Yeah. Yeah, So, speaking
of elections and that sort of thing, I've been reading
about redistricting lately and how difficult it can be even
(12:44):
if people are of good conscience, and they're not Gavinusum,
it's you know, shameless partisan jerrymandering. And I've been reading
about this mathematician whose the gig is her field, is
trying to figure out how heck to do redistricting in
a fair and logical way, and she mentioned something that
(13:06):
I found really intriguing. There are rules that vary by state,
but they have what they refer to as the Big
six population balance, compactness, contiguity, meaning your neighbors more or less,
respect for existing civic boundaries like counties, cities, towns, respect
(13:27):
for communities of interest, racial fairness, et cetera. So there
are a lot of layers to this. And obviously do
any of those things in most states, No, we certainly
don't do them honestly or in a good way. And
I thought this was really intriguing. I'm not sure it'll happen.
I think it would take a constitutional amendment. But they're
(13:50):
studying what they call proportional ranked ranked choice voting. Proportional
ranked choice voting also known as single transferable vote method
or STV in this scenario, you have multi member districts
using ranked choice. For example, because we talked earlier about California,
(14:10):
it's sixty forty Democrat Republican. Well, if every district is
sixty forty Democrat to Republican, Republicans will have zero representatives
in the House, and that's a problem. So this STV,
for example, not to be confused with STDs, something completely different,
but rather than one representative per each of nine districts
(14:31):
in Massachusetts, reduced the number of districts to three and
have each elect three representatives by a ranking method. That way,
Massachusetts would probably get two or three rather than zero
Republicans in Washington, it's not common. The biggest American city
that uses STV is Portland, Oregon. It was a great
(14:53):
success in last November city council election. I'm told all
kinds of groups were able to elect their preferred candidates
in proportion the voting numbers, even though in a single
neighborhood they might be outnumbered. I thought that was intriguing.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Well, if you yeah, but you start here, we've had
four hundred and thirty five members of the House since
nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
That makes no sense. What was the population in the
United States, then I don't know. Yeah, I remember, I've
seen those numbers that each representative went from representing, you know,
twenty five hundred people to now four hundred and fifty
thousand or whatever it is. Those numbers are not right,
but you get the idea. Yeah, it's it's a completely
different situation.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
So in nineteen thirteen, the population of the country was
ninety seven million people, right, and now it's three hundred
and forty So that.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Makes no sense.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
What you start there, right, we need if we wanted
to do it, if we thought that proportion was correct before,
we need to have And somebody figured this out.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
I heard it the other day.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
It might be this person you're quoting right here, because
there's a book out about it. But we should have
something like five hundred and ninety House members, right, yeah,
and we're not even close, And so that I think
that's the place to start. Every member would have a
much smaller population, and it'd be a lot easier to
be fair.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Have to have Donald Trump blow out of all of
the capitol and expand it, though, I mean, because you're
not going to fit all those people. Let's paying all
those damned salaries, although you know, as a fraction of
the federal government that's placed nothing.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
But well, the original intent or the way it would
have been one hundred years ago, you could have easily
gotten a hold of your house member, had some sort
of relationship with them if you wanted to.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Get actual politics. That's impossible now. Yeah, getting back to
the STV thing, I really like the idea because the
two states I'm most familiar with politically would be Illinois,
my home state, in California, where the show is based
and has been for decades now. And in both of
those cases, you have populous cities that so dominate the
(16:56):
state politics they can do more or less whatever they want.
And you've got these enormous swaths of conservatism in both
states that go more or less unrepresentative unrepresented, And I
think if you add a just a well, you'd have
to draw those districts too, and that would probably become
every bit as corrupt and disgusting. But I like the
(17:17):
idea anyway, Coming up, our friends from the Pacific Legal
Foundation on the Big Week at the Supreme Court. That's
next segment. Stay tuned if you can't grab the podcast.
Armstrong and Getty on demand later on.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
It's almost exactly ten times since we first had four
hundred and thirty five House members back in nineteen thirteen.
Back then, each House member represented about fifty five thousand people.
Now each House member represents about five hundred and fifty
thousand people. Wow, that's a completely different structure, right, That's
(17:55):
the first place to go to fix it, as far
as I'm concerned. Yeah, Yeah, got a lot of work
to do. Supreme Court heard some important arguments this week.
We talked about it a lot with the whole tariff thing.
Is the president got the power to do that or not?
If it turns out he doesn't, well that's going to
be a big change.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Yeah, yeah, big doings at the Scotis. We'll talk about it.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
X stay with us, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
I think she's an evil woman. I'm glad she's retiring.
Speaker 6 (18:21):
I think she did the country a great service player recheer.
I think she was a tremendous liability for the country,
And I think she was an evil woman who did
a poor job to costs the country a lot in
damages and in reputation. I thought she was terrible.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
So that's not the way our politics used to be
when Elder's graciousness as a leader retires.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
I love to hear that.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
When Elders Statesman used to step down on the other side,
you would, you know, the dedication to public service, blah
blah blah, you'd sail this stuff even if you hated him.
But we don't do that anymore, for better or worse.
And I go back back and forth on whether it's
better or worse.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Maybe we're just saying the quiet power up part out
loud now, but everybody was always thinking. She called him
the other day vile and the worst thing on Earth.
So right, there you go, that's where we are. That
pretty much sums up where we are this week he
had from Nancy and Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
Oh he's vile.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
He's the worst thing on planet Earth, the worst thing
on planet Earth, he said, she's even when corrupt.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
There you go, fair enough. So we're trying to connect
with Anastasia Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation to talk
about the Supreme Court this week, and we'll track her
down quickly. But I saw this and was just amused
by it on a couple of different levels. On election night,
all right, I guess it was late Monday night, Greg Abbott,
(19:45):
the governor of Texas, tweeted when it was starting to
look like Mum Donnie was indeed gonna win the election
from mayor of New York, Abbot tweeted he would impose
a one hundred percent tariff on New Yorker's moving to
Texas the polls close tomorrow night, I will impose one
hundred percent tariff on anyone moving to Texas from New
York City, which Jack, you're you're smiling. Obviously it's a joke.
(20:09):
It's it's funny. But here's why it matters. According to
one publication, tariffs are taxes on goods, not people, and
US states are not permitted to impose tariffs on imports
from other states, let alone people who. Further More, of
the Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right to travel,
et cetera, et cetera. And then they go into a
(20:29):
bunch of people breathlessly angry online both you know your
your unwashed masses and New York Governor Kathy hokel her
press office. Well, that's actually kind of a funny response,
political commentator Ed Krasenstein. This is illegal. MAGA has become
the party of violating the constitution.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Boy, So there weren't a ton of people just reacted
with you can't put a tariff on a person, so
let's not offend it.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Right, it was. It was a joke anyway, oh man,
speaking of tai rage real and manufactured. Yes, speaking of tariffs.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
The oral arguments were this week before the Supreme Court
to whether or not the President has the right to
by himself up end the world economy the way it is.
And now we're going to get an expert view on
how that went based on an emergency measure for executive power.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
S and d on a stage. Boden is a civil
rights attorney at the Fabulous Pacific Legal Foundation, where she
focuses on economic opportunity and equality before the law. On
a stage. Great to talk to you again. How are
you likewise?
Speaker 5 (21:36):
I'm doing well? Life from DC.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Oh excellent, terrific. Don't let them steal your soul while
you're there. So the oral arguments before the Supreme Court
lengthy and really interesting on the tariff case. What was
your takeaway?
Speaker 5 (21:52):
Yeah, well, it's hard to get a red on the justices.
They had really hard questions for Solicitor General John Sower
and his position on Trump's tariffs. Trump, of course contends
that he can pass these wide reaching tariffs that have
been crippling American businesses under the International Emergency Economics Powers Act.
(22:13):
The challengers say, there's no emergency, because what's going on
here is Trump has cited the long standing trade deficit,
which has of course been in effect for years and
economically is relevant anyway. And he's also cited the OPIIG crisis,
which again long standing for years. So it's not some
new emergency to say that he can now pass these tariffs.
So the challengers say, hey, no emergency. In any way,
this statute does not give you that broad of authority
(22:34):
you can do. You can pass it in regulations, but
you can't slap tariffs on which tariffs are usually Congress's job.
And so it was just really surprising that a lot
of the justices had very tough questions for John Sower.
And it looks like, you know, I think there's three
justices comfortably with the government, three justices comfortably with the challengers,
and then three who are toss ups at the moment.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Well, to me, and I just read this yesterday, to me.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
The slam dunk was getting the lawyer arguing for Trump's
side to admit that the way he's looking at it,
a democratic president could declare a climate emergency and put
all kinds of penalties on all kinds of things in
the same way if you're going to buy his reasoning,
(23:17):
and nobody, no conservative should want that.
Speaker 5 (23:22):
That's exactly right. That was a mic drop moment, and
questions came both from Justice Sodomar and from Justice Gorsich.
So Justice Gorsich, you know, who was a right appointed justice,
had the same question, like, Hey, didn't we just hear
a case a couple terms ago where Biden declared a
national emergency and then tried to alleviate magically with his
(23:43):
pen student loan debt, and didn't we say that's too much?
And now basically a president could do the exact same
thing under your theory.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Of the case.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
And so I think that's going to give many justices
a tough time ruling for the president when that's now
the consequence.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
And we also heard Ilina ca in tag teaming with
Amy Coney Barrett on a different topic, I mean trade,
do you think there are three justices that are comfortably
with the government at this point? Who are they.
Speaker 5 (24:11):
I think it's Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Cavanaugh.
You know, they are traditionally in favor of broad executive
power and deference to the executive even when there's declared
emergencies that might not really be emergencies, but you kind
of have to defer to the president's assessment that there's
an emergency.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
And they had the easiest questions, I think for for
the government.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Well, if you're right, I mean I generally, I generally
agree with those guys.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
But that'd be the end of the country if you
could just declare practically.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Anything an emergency and start in levy taxes.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
Yeah, yeah, right, And that's you know, that is a
difficult thing. I mean, what's what's to stop a present
from going even further? And especially because you know, this
was one of the things the challenger said was, Hey,
Paris raise revenue, So what the difference between even tariffs
and taxes at this point? Can the government just raise revenue?
Can the president, I mean just raise revenue? And the
(25:09):
attorney for the government said, no, raising revenue is different.
This actually isn't intended to raise revenue. It's intended to
stimulate the economy. We don't care about revenue coming in.
We care about stopping trade, so our purpose is different.
And usually justices don't want to get in the business
of making, you know, drawing that type of line. They're
never going to come in and say, well, this one's different.
This time you're not actually raising revenue, or this time
(25:30):
you didn't mean to raise revenue. So it would effectively
be a blate check to the president. And yet I
think it's I think it's true those justices would rule
for the president at this point. And then you have
Justice Jackson, Justice Kagan, Justice Soda mayor comfortably against the government,
and the other three are tossups.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
I can come up with so many horrible examples of
the way this could be used. Big school shooting gets
lots of national attention. The Democratic president declares school shootings
an emergency and puts a five hundred percent tariff for
tax or whatever on guns, for instance.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Right right, I you know, I just I believe Americans
of good conscience should hear the term emergency powers and
react as if their child had proposed getting a pet chimpanzee.
It's an automatic no unless the case is made with
brilliant clarity and and and bitter necessity, if you know
what I mean, just the phrase emergency powers should send
(26:26):
every American to grab their gads and flag and wave
it around anyway. Anastasia, Yeah, right, oh my god. Yeah,
executive overreach. It doesn't matter if it's your guy or
the other guy. Resistant nine to eleven.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
All the things that got passed in the Patriot Act
after that that we didn't even know about. I mean, yeah,
emergency powers are scary.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Anastasia boden is with a pacific legal foundation. Hey, one
question that's been asked a lot about this case, and Anastasia,
if you have no idea, feel free to stay so
is if the court rules against those tariffs, what happens
to all the money that was collected?
Speaker 5 (27:01):
Yeah, and that you know, that is a thing that
the statute says it should be repaid. And that's something
that the challengers are really worried about, right because because
that is going to weigh on the justice's mind. Are
we really going to put the government on the hook
for you know, millions, if not billions of dollars in
taxes that now have to be Well.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
That's the pay that's one problem. The amount is one problem.
Who gets it the guy who bought the truck that
costs one thousand dollars more or the Ford dealer. Who
I mean, I can't even imagine how you would unwind that.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Well, given the fact that we just discussed this Atastasia,
then I'll get out of your way. But we just
discussed this the other day, that the tariffs, the cost
of the tariffs are being picked up by a variety
of actors in a variety of levels, depending on what
product you're talking about. So it's unbelievably complicated.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
It's a logistical nightmare. But the answer from the government
or from the challenger at oral argument was, hey, Congress
can fix this later. Kick the can like Congress kind
of you know, sweep that up later. We can all
fix that. That should not be a reason trule against this,
and of course it shouldn't. If the law says that
Trump couldn't do this, it doesn't matter what the consequences are.
You got gotta invalidate the act.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
Yeah, I keep forgetting we have a Congress. They don't
do much, so you don't notice them on a Stasia,
a Boden anything else. Of note. At the Supreme Court
this week, this case kind of grabbed all the spotlights.
Speaker 5 (28:19):
That absolutely overshadowed everything. It was. It was anything, it
was everything anybody was watching. I couldn't even get in.
People had lined up the day before for oral arguments.
But as you said, you know, these emergency powers, they're
on everybody's mind. It's one of the most famous statements
from constitutional law, from a Supreme Court opinion that emergency
powers beget emergencies. You know, the more that you get
(28:41):
you hand this power over, it will be used not
just during the administration you favor, but the next administration.
So it kind of dominated the headlines this week.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Well, you know that's great, and I think one of
the justices actually said that during the oral arguments that
emergency powers beget emergencies. You gotta hammer. You start looking
for something a hammer. It's just human nature on a station.
Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation, Hey, thanks for the analysis.
We really appreciate it and save travels.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Of course, love the Pacific Legal Foundation. They do great work.
It is a problem.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
So in my mind it's absolutely one hundred percent clear
we can't be giving in these emergency powers to Donald
Trump because it'll come back Oh my god, if you're
if you're the biggest Trump fan in the world, this
will come back to haunt you in so many different ways. Yes,
with the next Democratic president, you could so see a
Joe Biden or a Barack Obama, especially when climate change
(29:39):
was a lot hotter than if you'll pardon the expression,
than it is now of like the prevailing wisdom. Oh
my god, the taxes and tariffs and penalties you could
have levied across the country with that as an emergency to.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Reward your cronies in the fake green energy world. I mean,
not that all of green energy is fake, it's certainly not,
but yeah, I mean it could be just, oh my god,
less power, less power, not more. But I'm a little
disturbed to hear the KAVO make go that way.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
But we'll say, but the other side of it being well,
then you got to unwind this to the tune of
billions of dollars. And there's no fair way you can
do that, because how about businesses who decided, well, I
just ate it. You know, I just made less profits
because I thought I needed to be more competitive with
my prices than my opponent who raised the prices.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
So what do I get back right right, And in
most of these supply chains there are two to five
different entities that absorbed some or all of the cost
from the exporter and the fur and land to the
domestic consumer. So anyway, So on the other hand, that's
just that, what are you going to do? What a
tangled web we weave when first we decided to apply
(30:45):
illegal terrfs. In my opinion, well.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
I think I still don't quite have the answer in this.
Why didn't Supreme Court jump on this, like the day
after Liberation Day?
Speaker 1 (30:57):
We should ask Anastasia she didn't know Tim would know.
You gotta you gotta go through the motions. You gotta
get standing and have a lawsuit filed, and oh you
need multiple couple of briefs, two or three briefs at
the list. Everybody knows that. Okay, people are falling in
(31:18):
love with their chatbots. They actually The New York Times
had a serious article about that. I can't wait to
get into that. How ur three, What a weird story.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Among all the things on the way.
Speaker 7 (31:30):
This one is the first one, and it is a
big deal because battleship has been around for a long time.
This was actually originally played with paper and pencil back
for a long time ago, and.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
Then slowly came along. This came along, sold one.
Speaker 7 (31:41):
Hundred million of these, so very very popular, and became
one of the first electronic games.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
Here's another one inducted this year. Slime. No, this is
a post time. Slime is made by a lot of people.
Speaker 7 (31:52):
So this is a general toy that got in taper
household growing up right there.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
Pursue.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
So the three toys going into the Toy Hall of Fame,
and I'm surprised the ones that haven't already made it
in there. But Battleship, you suck my Battleship, Trivial Pursuit
and Slime. God did I love Slime when it came out. Oh,
we had so much fun with that in our house.
What a great toy. Did they still make that or
did they? That's probably why I got them.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Yeah, h that toy is childish. That toy that kid
is playing with us childish. I don't think they should
sell Battleship because it teaches militarism to children. Say, we
got to use suck colonial oppressor ideology. We had we
got a joke I want to get to but we
got to use suck text that I want to address,
(32:47):
and we get. We get lots of them, so I
can't get to them all. But you guys suck.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
Trump is building our economy and returning businesses to America
through tariffs. That is the other example that forgot to mention.
That's one of the biggest problems. What if you're a
company that has already you know, bought the land or
broken ground or dedicated forty million dollars to building a
plant because you just decided, well, the only way I'm
(33:16):
going to be able to compete is bring the plant
here back to the United States, here in Indiana instead
of in Mexico or whatever.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
But the new terrorists blah blah.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Blah like like was the point of the tariffs for Trump,
and then they become it turns out they're illegal, and.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
Your competitor didn't do that. Oh that I would. I
would say, friend, that we're not the ones that suck.
Certainly at making arguments. You just excused a democratic far
left president from doing anything they want, exceeding their constitutional
powers if their goal is noble. That's not the way
it works. Brother or sister or neither or both. So
(33:51):
the thing these days.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Got a joke to play for you from Greg Guttfeld
last night. This is a pretty damned edgy joke I did.
I guess it took a quarter of a century before
you can make this sort of joke. You'll get it
when you go ahead through.
Speaker 8 (34:06):
Since Zo ran one, there have already been a few
minor changes to the city. And get this, and get this,
LaGuardia Airport will now be offering direct flights into the
Freedom Tower.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Oh, it's a joke. It's a joke. That's an edgy joke.
That's an edgy joke in New York. I got Ramba. Yeah,
isn't it something?
Speaker 3 (34:40):
Though, it's like other than that, how did you like
to play missus Lincoln? I mean, after a certain amount
of time, a gruesome tragedy becomes something you can joke about.
But it takes a certain amount of time. I'd say
with nine eleven it took like two decades. Yeah, that's
a joke, but not a funny one. It's a surprising
(35:03):
one and a shocking one. It's making a statement that
that joke was a statement that many of us are
highly concerned that someone who appears to be an out
and out Islamist is sympathetic to the people who did
what they did on nine to eleven. Right, almost impossible
(35:24):
to believe that he wasn't happy about that.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
What nine to eleven? Yeah, it was a tiny child.
He would at his house he felt like, said, oh yeah,
if he felt like he was safe, he would explain
to you how the colonial oppressor US got would it deserved? Yeah, yeah,
So he'd mentioned this during the week.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
Tesla's shareholders did approve that record setting pay package for
Elon Musk, granting him one trillion dollars an additional stock
if he hit certain milestone, the biggest package anybody's ever
had out there as a bonus package. And I heard
a bunch of communists yesterday arguing about then. And yet
(36:09):
people are hungry in the streets.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
You know that. Shut up commies. I think that, honestly,
that amazing amount of money obscures the more significant development,
which is they have embraced Elon turning Tesla into a
robotics company an AI shut Com, Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Show, Getty Armstrong and
Getty and Key Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
If there is no deal to reopen the government, the
FAA's mandating airlines reduced flights by up to ten percent
at forty of the country's busiest airports.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Multiple airline officials.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Now tell me the Trump administration will start this off
at about a four percent cut, then ramp this up
to ten percent through next week.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
So, yeah, it's four percent today, a couple hundred flights.
If the shutdown continues, it'll go up up. By next Friday,
it'll be forty five hundred flights. And so it started today,
and we'll keep our eye on that and have more
on that later.
Speaker 4 (00:53):
Here.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
I'm strong Eyetty store is open for Christmas season. I
get uncomfortable talking about this.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
I don't know why.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Something about having my name on thing you buy for
Christmas makes me uncomfortable, even though I know a lot
of you want it, and you get people are fans
of the show and they would like it. But we
now have Armstrong in Getty pickleball paddles, among things wait
a minute, all the things in our story. A minute,
you go to Armstrong and getdy dot.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Com on one of those coffee mugs, water bottles. I'm
telling you the Fioliican party t shirts.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
I want a hoodie that says starve the Lazy, That's
what I yes. So it's Friday. I don't know if
that means you're more likely to date or wish you
had a date. Probably, but it seems like a good
time to check in on hot dating trends with Katie Green.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Katie Jeez. I set it up like a cable news segment.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, that was great.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
This is from the USA Today talking about dating trends
have reached new lows this year. One of the new
ones that we haven't talked about is called throning.
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Well, let's let's start with shreking, the one we have
talked about, just to get it out of the way.
That is, you intentionally date. It's usually women dating guys.
Intentionally dated guy you don't find attractive, like he's a
Shrek looking character, because you think he'll treat you better, right,
which is one of the worst things I've ever heard
in my life. Because he's so he's feels like he's
(02:21):
so lucky to have you, he will treat.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
You to hang on to you. Yes, yes, that's a
great basis for a healthy relationship. Yes, that'll go great.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
So the fact that you are god every bit of
every phrase that comes to mind. I'm horrified by the
fact that you are lowering your standards because you think
he'll be feel so lucky to have you that he
treats you better than someone else. Is about as disgusting
a philosophy as I can imagine. But that's shreking. Okay,
(02:52):
So now what the hell is throwning?
Speaker 4 (02:54):
So throning is when you date someone to raise your
own social status. So the goal is to land a
partner with clout so that your own image gets a boost.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
I think that's all. Every celebrity in the world knows
what that's about, right.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
That's probably well, it's depends on how much if that's
your main motivation. Obviously that's an odd way to go
about getting relationships. But I think in general people want
to be in a relationship with somebody that is, you know,
(03:31):
a good a good example of society, right, I mean,
isn't that just in general you're hoping you date somebody
that if your friends or family met them, they think, well,
they are very they're very you know, contributing member of society.
Where it's more calculating than that, where that crosses into throning,
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Yeah, I take this.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
This came from some TikToker who talks about dating says
if a person seems overly focused on your status or
your social circle and changes their behaviors towards you, depending
upon what whether you're in public or private, this can
indicate throning.
Speaker 3 (04:05):
Yeah, many years ago, I was driving a really nice
car at the time, and I had a girl in
like the second date or whatever, says something to me.
I picked her up in a different vehicle than my
really nice car, and she said, I'd kind of prefer
to be seen in your.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Other car when you pick me up.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
And I thought, Oki, whoa, this isn't a good idea.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
The next one they have here is bank seeing, which
derives its name from the elusive street artist Banksy. Like
a baffling Banksy art piece. Bank seeing in a relationship
involves slowly withdrawing emotionally from your partner without telling them
what you're doing.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
All right, this is for Dack why are you doing this?
Is this to make them want you more? Or are
you just trying to get out of the relationship.
Speaker 4 (04:53):
This seems like a really elusive way to get out
of a relationship.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
This is what they're calling bank seeing now only withdrawing
because the fire is gone. That's called a relationship ending.
I'm gonna speak for our listeners. This is ridiculous. Everything
doesn't need a name. Everything isn't a trend. Slowly deciding
this isn't for me is not a trend. It's been
a trend since we crawled from the primordial ooze. I'll
(05:17):
not have this foolishness.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
What Joe is doing is called rage talking right popular
thing now, it's a trend on middle.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Age right cold warrior? Do you mean nothing to do
with the Cold War?
Speaker 3 (05:29):
When middle aged men get fed up with modern trends,
they do something called rage talking tread.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Tread. When someone branded people inhaling, they're exhaling what they're
done inhaling its.
Speaker 4 (05:43):
Tread only our listeners to see how red you're getting.
This is incredible. Yes, just a time for the Christmas
was supposed to be fun. Yeah, right, you're supposed to
lighten things up here, when someone employs the bank sying technique,
it says they start destroying the relation and ship before
the other person even sees it coming, because banksy selfish.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Again, you know, I'm sorry this this is dumb. Yeah right,
I had great promise, Like so many of my schemes
in life, it had great promise at the beginning. I think,
I think, I hope. Shreking is not a very popular thing, but.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
It's the only one that's stuck around for a while,
the shreking. I haven't heard any of these until this
stupid article.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
You are such can we just awful? These things under
the heading here's what shallow stupid people do? You know what?
We're too tolerant as a society. You've got to be
less tolerant. That's ugly, it's stupid, it's shallow. I weep
for you that you didn't have a healthy relationship that
you can use to model what your relationships are going
(06:44):
to be like. If you're any of those things. Stop
being it. Michael just stopped calling it a trend. Michael
or Jack?
Speaker 4 (06:50):
Are you guys both getting joy out of the fact
that all of this is happening While Joe is wearing
his cut the crap T shirt because that is yeah, precisely.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Yeah, man, So.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
Everything being online in social media and people communicating with
each other. I suppose, I suppose it would make sense.
I hadn't thought about this before. This is just off
the top of my head. But if our politics has
gotten dominated by the worst among us, why wouldn't relationship
trends get dominated by the worst among us for exactly
(07:25):
the same reasons.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah, the worst or dopiest or shallowest among us.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Yeah, so there are there are two more on this list,
but I don't want Joe to explode.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
So I'm just gonna.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Take one edge of blood pressure pill and then Katie
will finish this off.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
The go ahead quickly. They're dumb, like a medical procedure.
The sooner we started, the sooner. It's over ZIP coding,
all right, I can't even take it. Yeah, I see
the reef version of.
Speaker 4 (07:53):
That, where people on dating apps will either stick only
to their ZIP codes or stick only outside.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Of their zip codes. What the hell?
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, I can say see sticking two years zip code
just because you want somebody near those.
Speaker 4 (08:07):
But there are other people that though, Yeah, but there
are other people that look specifically away from their own
zip code, which I would make more sense.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
To me, might fit in with the that might fit
in with the stat we had a while back of
the percentage of people, particularly men on online dating sites,
who are freaking married.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
I was told by a woman the other day, she said,
you would not believe how many married men are on
the dating.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
Website she's on.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
She meets them and they talk and they're we're gonna
meet forgotty or whatever it is. And she does a
little research on them and turns out they they're married,
or she comes across husbands.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Of her friends, Oh gosh, and has to go tell
their friends.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Hey, you know, I hate to tell you this, but
your husband's on match dot Com looking for dates claiming
is single.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
I mean, that is so crazy.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
There is an entire dating service dedicated to as Oh yeah,
sure this, I mean it came this came out years ago.
But Ashley Madison, Yeah, but the well, the idea is
just gross. You know, life is short have an affair
as their tagline.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Practically the oldest thing in the world is the idea
of an affair. But the idea that you're going on
to a dating website with your picture and everything while
you're married, claiman your single How do you think that's
going to end you?
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Moron?
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Not to mention the fact that it's an awful thing
to do. Yeah, embarrass your spouse horribly publicly.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I just I can't even believe that. I mean, so,
if that's true, and like I said, I know somebody
who's had this specific experience multiple times.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
If that's going on, well maybe these other stupid things
are happening too, zeppelining or whatever we were talking about.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Here's the last one, Jodey deep breath. Okay, monkey barring.
It alludes to how in dating, people move from one
partner to the next partner, only letting go of the
previous once they've once they've sealed the deal.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
With their next one.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
I think that's a common emotional technique. Yeah, unfortunate, unfortunate also,
but it's called monkey barring. Now that's the trend. Not
a good idea according to any therapist. But monkey barring. Yes,
not everything needs name. It's not a trend.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yeah, I promise an hour job until you got another
one lined up.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Okay, all right, okay, well job's okay. I don't know
about the relationships that now, if you know you're done.
You gotta tell them you got it. That's true, you
got it. That's not cool. Yeah, I promise an hour
three to get to this New York Times article about
people that are in relationships at their AI chatbots. This
is a serious piece of journalism. It's highly troubling, and
(10:44):
I think it's going to be a huge topic for
the next several decades, as long as mankind can survive it.
And that might be just like ten years fifteen, so
we got about fifteen years. Maybe you're online a lot,
looking up moronic trends that don't exist, and you'll be
attacked to buy scammers, and that's why we recommend Webroot
Total Protection. It's lightning fast, anivirus I did any protection,
(11:07):
dark web monitoring, secure VPN, and unlimited cloud backup, all
those things in one.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
This doesn't have a clever name. They're just called a thief.
They want to steal from you, and you can avoid
that with Webroot Total Protection. Protect your whole family, which
is really cool, even the kids and seniors. It's easy
to install a no annoying pop ups, and it scans
six times faster than the competition.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
And Wowser's listen to this deal. Get CyberSecure with sixty
percent off webroot total protection not only at webroot dot
com slash armstrong. That's sixty percent off, but only through
our magical link. Don't wait. Live a better digital life
at webroot. Go to webroot dot com slash armstrong right now.
That's webroot dot com slash armstrong. Offer ends soon webroot
(11:52):
dot com slash Armstrong.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
The Secretary of War announced another boat got blowed up
down near by Venezuela. I think that's number fifteen or
something like that over the last several weeks.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Yikes, they're serious about it. I got a few details
on that, A lot of other stuff on the way.
Stay here. Some more news from Washington today.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Nancy Pelosi announced that she won't seek reelection and plans
on retiring in two years at the age of eighty six,
or as it's known in congressional terms your tweens.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
And no kidding, eighty six. Damn near ninety. That's wild.
I wasn't paying attention wild Nancy Pelosi. She'll be eighty
six when she's doing eighty six. Yeah. Yeah, So, speaking
of elections and that sort of thing, I've been reading
about redistricting lately and how difficult it can be even
(12:44):
if people are of good conscience, and they're not Gavinusum,
it's you know, shameless partisan jerrymandering. And I've been reading
about this mathematician whose the gig is her field, is
trying to figure out how heck to do redistricting in
a fair and logical way, and she mentioned something that
(13:06):
I found really intriguing. There are rules that vary by state,
but they have what they refer to as the Big
six population balance, compactness, contiguity, meaning your neighbors more or less,
respect for existing civic boundaries like counties, cities, towns, respect
(13:27):
for communities of interest, racial fairness, et cetera. So there
are a lot of layers to this. And obviously do
any of those things in most states, No, we certainly
don't do them honestly or in a good way. And
I thought this was really intriguing. I'm not sure it'll happen.
I think it would take a constitutional amendment. But they're
(13:50):
studying what they call proportional ranked ranked choice voting. Proportional
ranked choice voting also known as single transferable vote method
or STV in this scenario, you have multi member districts
using ranked choice. For example, because we talked earlier about California,
(14:10):
it's sixty forty Democrat Republican. Well, if every district is
sixty forty Democrat to Republican, Republicans will have zero representatives
in the House, and that's a problem. So this STV,
for example, not to be confused with STDs, something completely different,
but rather than one representative per each of nine districts
(14:31):
in Massachusetts, reduced the number of districts to three and
have each elect three representatives by a ranking method. That way,
Massachusetts would probably get two or three rather than zero
Republicans in Washington, it's not common. The biggest American city
that uses STV is Portland, Oregon. It was a great
(14:53):
success in last November city council election. I'm told all
kinds of groups were able to elect their preferred candidates
in proportion the voting numbers, even though in a single
neighborhood they might be outnumbered. I thought that was intriguing.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
Well, if you yeah, but you start here, we've had
four hundred and thirty five members of the House since
nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
That makes no sense. What was the population in the
United States, then I don't know. Yeah, I remember, I've
seen those numbers that each representative went from representing, you know,
twenty five hundred people to now four hundred and fifty
thousand or whatever it is. Those numbers are not right,
but you get the idea. Yeah, it's it's a completely
different situation.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
So in nineteen thirteen, the population of the country was
ninety seven million people, right, and now it's three hundred
and forty So that.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Makes no sense.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
What you start there, right, we need if we wanted
to do it, if we thought that proportion was correct before,
we need to have And somebody figured this out.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
I heard it the other day.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
It might be this person you're quoting right here, because
there's a book out about it. But we should have
something like five hundred and ninety House members, right, yeah,
and we're not even close, And so that I think
that's the place to start. Every member would have a
much smaller population, and it'd be a lot easier to
be fair.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Have to have Donald Trump blow out of all of
the capitol and expand it, though, I mean, because you're
not going to fit all those people. Let's paying all
those damned salaries, although you know, as a fraction of
the federal government that's placed nothing.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
But well, the original intent or the way it would
have been one hundred years ago, you could have easily
gotten a hold of your house member, had some sort
of relationship with them if you wanted to.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Get actual politics. That's impossible now. Yeah, getting back to
the STV thing, I really like the idea because the
two states I'm most familiar with politically would be Illinois,
my home state, in California, where the show is based
and has been for decades now. And in both of
those cases, you have populous cities that so dominate the
(16:56):
state politics they can do more or less whatever they want.
And you've got these enormous swaths of conservatism in both
states that go more or less unrepresentative unrepresented, And I
think if you add a just a well, you'd have
to draw those districts too, and that would probably become
every bit as corrupt and disgusting. But I like the
(17:17):
idea anyway, Coming up, our friends from the Pacific Legal
Foundation on the Big Week at the Supreme Court. That's
next segment. Stay tuned if you can't grab the podcast.
Armstrong and Getty on demand later on.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
It's almost exactly ten times since we first had four
hundred and thirty five House members back in nineteen thirteen.
Back then, each House member represented about fifty five thousand people.
Now each House member represents about five hundred and fifty
thousand people. Wow, that's a completely different structure, right, That's
(17:55):
the first place to go to fix it, as far
as I'm concerned. Yeah, Yeah, got a lot of work
to do. Supreme Court heard some important arguments this week.
We talked about it a lot with the whole tariff thing.
Is the president got the power to do that or not?
If it turns out he doesn't, well that's going to
be a big change.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Yeah, yeah, big doings at the Scotis. We'll talk about it.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
X stay with us, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
I think she's an evil woman. I'm glad she's retiring.
Speaker 6 (18:21):
I think she did the country a great service player recheer.
I think she was a tremendous liability for the country,
And I think she was an evil woman who did
a poor job to costs the country a lot in
damages and in reputation. I thought she was terrible.
Speaker 3 (18:40):
So that's not the way our politics used to be
when Elder's graciousness as a leader retires.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
I love to hear that.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
When Elders Statesman used to step down on the other side,
you would, you know, the dedication to public service, blah
blah blah, you'd sail this stuff even if you hated him.
But we don't do that anymore, for better or worse.
And I go back back and forth on whether it's
better or worse.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Maybe we're just saying the quiet power up part out
loud now, but everybody was always thinking. She called him
the other day vile and the worst thing on Earth.
So right, there you go, that's where we are. That
pretty much sums up where we are this week he
had from Nancy and Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
Oh he's vile.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
He's the worst thing on planet Earth, the worst thing
on planet Earth, he said, she's even when corrupt.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
There you go, fair enough. So we're trying to connect
with Anastasia Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation to talk
about the Supreme Court this week, and we'll track her
down quickly. But I saw this and was just amused
by it on a couple of different levels. On election night,
all right, I guess it was late Monday night, Greg Abbott,
(19:45):
the governor of Texas, tweeted when it was starting to
look like Mum Donnie was indeed gonna win the election
from mayor of New York, Abbot tweeted he would impose
a one hundred percent tariff on New Yorker's moving to
Texas the polls close tomorrow night, I will impose one
hundred percent tariff on anyone moving to Texas from New
York City, which Jack, you're you're smiling. Obviously it's a joke.
(20:09):
It's it's funny. But here's why it matters. According to
one publication, tariffs are taxes on goods, not people, and
US states are not permitted to impose tariffs on imports
from other states, let alone people who. Further More, of
the Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right to travel,
et cetera, et cetera. And then they go into a
(20:29):
bunch of people breathlessly angry online both you know your
your unwashed masses and New York Governor Kathy hokel her
press office. Well, that's actually kind of a funny response,
political commentator Ed Krasenstein. This is illegal. MAGA has become
the party of violating the constitution.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Boy, So there weren't a ton of people just reacted
with you can't put a tariff on a person, so
let's not offend it.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Right, it was. It was a joke anyway, oh man,
speaking of tai rage real and manufactured. Yes, speaking of tariffs.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
The oral arguments were this week before the Supreme Court
to whether or not the President has the right to
by himself up end the world economy the way it is.
And now we're going to get an expert view on
how that went based on an emergency measure for executive power.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
S and d on a stage. Boden is a civil
rights attorney at the Fabulous Pacific Legal Foundation, where she
focuses on economic opportunity and equality before the law. On
a stage. Great to talk to you again. How are
you likewise?
Speaker 5 (21:36):
I'm doing well? Life from DC.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Oh excellent, terrific. Don't let them steal your soul while
you're there. So the oral arguments before the Supreme Court
lengthy and really interesting on the tariff case. What was
your takeaway?
Speaker 5 (21:52):
Yeah, well, it's hard to get a red on the justices.
They had really hard questions for Solicitor General John Sower
and his position on Trump's tariffs. Trump, of course contends
that he can pass these wide reaching tariffs that have
been crippling American businesses under the International Emergency Economics Powers Act.
(22:13):
The challengers say, there's no emergency, because what's going on
here is Trump has cited the long standing trade deficit,
which has of course been in effect for years and
economically is relevant anyway. And he's also cited the OPIIG crisis,
which again long standing for years. So it's not some
new emergency to say that he can now pass these tariffs.
So the challengers say, hey, no emergency. In any way,
this statute does not give you that broad of authority
(22:34):
you can do. You can pass it in regulations, but
you can't slap tariffs on which tariffs are usually Congress's job.
And so it was just really surprising that a lot
of the justices had very tough questions for John Sower.
And it looks like, you know, I think there's three
justices comfortably with the government, three justices comfortably with the challengers,
and then three who are toss ups at the moment.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Well, to me, and I just read this yesterday, to me.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
The slam dunk was getting the lawyer arguing for Trump's
side to admit that the way he's looking at it,
a democratic president could declare a climate emergency and put
all kinds of penalties on all kinds of things in
the same way if you're going to buy his reasoning,
(23:17):
and nobody, no conservative should want that.
Speaker 5 (23:22):
That's exactly right. That was a mic drop moment, and
questions came both from Justice Sodomar and from Justice Gorsich.
So Justice Gorsich, you know, who was a right appointed justice,
had the same question, like, Hey, didn't we just hear
a case a couple terms ago where Biden declared a
national emergency and then tried to alleviate magically with his
(23:43):
pen student loan debt, and didn't we say that's too much?
And now basically a president could do the exact same
thing under your theory.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
Of the case.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
And so I think that's going to give many justices
a tough time ruling for the president when that's now
the consequence.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
And we also heard Ilina ca in tag teaming with
Amy Coney Barrett on a different topic, I mean trade,
do you think there are three justices that are comfortably
with the government at this point? Who are they.
Speaker 5 (24:11):
I think it's Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Cavanaugh.
You know, they are traditionally in favor of broad executive
power and deference to the executive even when there's declared
emergencies that might not really be emergencies, but you kind
of have to defer to the president's assessment that there's
an emergency.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
And they had the easiest questions, I think for for
the government.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Well, if you're right, I mean I generally, I generally
agree with those guys.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
But that'd be the end of the country if you
could just declare practically.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Anything an emergency and start in levy taxes.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
Yeah, yeah, right, And that's you know, that is a
difficult thing. I mean, what's what's to stop a present
from going even further? And especially because you know, this
was one of the things the challenger said was, Hey,
Paris raise revenue, So what the difference between even tariffs
and taxes at this point? Can the government just raise revenue?
Can the president, I mean just raise revenue? And the
(25:09):
attorney for the government said, no, raising revenue is different.
This actually isn't intended to raise revenue. It's intended to
stimulate the economy. We don't care about revenue coming in.
We care about stopping trade, so our purpose is different.
And usually justices don't want to get in the business
of making, you know, drawing that type of line. They're
never going to come in and say, well, this one's different.
This time you're not actually raising revenue, or this time
(25:30):
you didn't mean to raise revenue. So it would effectively
be a blate check to the president. And yet I
think it's I think it's true those justices would rule
for the president at this point. And then you have
Justice Jackson, Justice Kagan, Justice Soda mayor comfortably against the government,
and the other three are tossups.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
I can come up with so many horrible examples of
the way this could be used. Big school shooting gets
lots of national attention. The Democratic president declares school shootings
an emergency and puts a five hundred percent tariff for
tax or whatever on guns, for instance.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Right right, I you know, I just I believe Americans
of good conscience should hear the term emergency powers and
react as if their child had proposed getting a pet chimpanzee.
It's an automatic no unless the case is made with
brilliant clarity and and and bitter necessity, if you know
what I mean, just the phrase emergency powers should send
(26:26):
every American to grab their gads and flag and wave
it around anyway. Anastasia, Yeah, right, oh my god. Yeah,
executive overreach. It doesn't matter if it's your guy or
the other guy. Resistant nine to eleven.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
All the things that got passed in the Patriot Act
after that that we didn't even know about. I mean, yeah,
emergency powers are scary.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Anastasia boden is with a pacific legal foundation. Hey, one
question that's been asked a lot about this case, and Anastasia,
if you have no idea, feel free to stay so
is if the court rules against those tariffs, what happens
to all the money that was collected?
Speaker 5 (27:01):
Yeah, and that you know, that is a thing that
the statute says it should be repaid. And that's something
that the challengers are really worried about, right because because
that is going to weigh on the justice's mind. Are
we really going to put the government on the hook
for you know, millions, if not billions of dollars in
taxes that now have to be Well.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
That's the pay that's one problem. The amount is one problem.
Who gets it the guy who bought the truck that
costs one thousand dollars more or the Ford dealer. Who
I mean, I can't even imagine how you would unwind that.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Well, given the fact that we just discussed this Atastasia,
then I'll get out of your way. But we just
discussed this the other day, that the tariffs, the cost
of the tariffs are being picked up by a variety
of actors in a variety of levels, depending on what
product you're talking about. So it's unbelievably complicated.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
It's a logistical nightmare. But the answer from the government
or from the challenger at oral argument was, hey, Congress
can fix this later. Kick the can like Congress kind
of you know, sweep that up later. We can all
fix that. That should not be a reason trule against this,
and of course it shouldn't. If the law says that
Trump couldn't do this, it doesn't matter what the consequences are.
You got gotta invalidate the act.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
Yeah, I keep forgetting we have a Congress. They don't
do much, so you don't notice them on a Stasia,
a Boden anything else. Of note. At the Supreme Court
this week, this case kind of grabbed all the spotlights.
Speaker 5 (28:19):
That absolutely overshadowed everything. It was. It was anything, it
was everything anybody was watching. I couldn't even get in.
People had lined up the day before for oral arguments.
But as you said, you know, these emergency powers, they're
on everybody's mind. It's one of the most famous statements
from constitutional law, from a Supreme Court opinion that emergency
powers beget emergencies. You know, the more that you get
(28:41):
you hand this power over, it will be used not
just during the administration you favor, but the next administration.
So it kind of dominated the headlines this week.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Well, you know that's great, and I think one of
the justices actually said that during the oral arguments that
emergency powers beget emergencies. You gotta hammer. You start looking
for something a hammer. It's just human nature on a station.
Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation, Hey, thanks for the analysis.
We really appreciate it and save travels.
Speaker 5 (29:09):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Of course, love the Pacific Legal Foundation. They do great work.
It is a problem.
Speaker 3 (29:16):
So in my mind it's absolutely one hundred percent clear
we can't be giving in these emergency powers to Donald
Trump because it'll come back Oh my god, if you're
if you're the biggest Trump fan in the world, this
will come back to haunt you in so many different ways. Yes,
with the next Democratic president, you could so see a
Joe Biden or a Barack Obama, especially when climate change
(29:39):
was a lot hotter than if you'll pardon the expression,
than it is now of like the prevailing wisdom. Oh
my god, the taxes and tariffs and penalties you could
have levied across the country with that as an emergency to.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
Reward your cronies in the fake green energy world. I mean,
not that all of green energy is fake, it's certainly not,
but yeah, I mean it could be just, oh my god,
less power, less power, not more. But I'm a little
disturbed to hear the KAVO make go that way.
Speaker 3 (30:06):
But we'll say, but the other side of it being well,
then you got to unwind this to the tune of
billions of dollars. And there's no fair way you can
do that, because how about businesses who decided, well, I
just ate it. You know, I just made less profits
because I thought I needed to be more competitive with
my prices than my opponent who raised the prices.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
So what do I get back right right, And in
most of these supply chains there are two to five
different entities that absorbed some or all of the cost
from the exporter and the fur and land to the
domestic consumer. So anyway, So on the other hand, that's
just that, what are you going to do? What a
tangled web we weave when first we decided to apply
(30:45):
illegal terrfs. In my opinion, well.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
I think I still don't quite have the answer in this.
Why didn't Supreme Court jump on this, like the day
after Liberation Day?
Speaker 1 (30:57):
We should ask Anastasia she didn't know Tim would know.
You gotta you gotta go through the motions. You gotta
get standing and have a lawsuit filed, and oh you
need multiple couple of briefs, two or three briefs at
the list. Everybody knows that. Okay, people are falling in
(31:18):
love with their chatbots. They actually The New York Times
had a serious article about that. I can't wait to
get into that. How ur three, What a weird story.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Among all the things on the way.
Speaker 7 (31:30):
This one is the first one, and it is a
big deal because battleship has been around for a long time.
This was actually originally played with paper and pencil back
for a long time ago, and.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
Then slowly came along. This came along, sold one.
Speaker 7 (31:41):
Hundred million of these, so very very popular, and became
one of the first electronic games.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
Here's another one inducted this year. Slime. No, this is
a post time. Slime is made by a lot of people.
Speaker 7 (31:52):
So this is a general toy that got in taper
household growing up right there.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
Pursue.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
So the three toys going into the Toy Hall of Fame,
and I'm surprised the ones that haven't already made it
in there. But Battleship, you suck my Battleship, Trivial Pursuit
and Slime. God did I love Slime when it came out. Oh,
we had so much fun with that in our house.
What a great toy. Did they still make that or
did they? That's probably why I got them.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Yeah, h that toy is childish. That toy that kid
is playing with us childish. I don't think they should
sell Battleship because it teaches militarism to children. Say, we
got to use suck colonial oppressor ideology. We had we
got a joke I want to get to but we
got to use suck text that I want to address,
(32:47):
and we get. We get lots of them, so I
can't get to them all. But you guys suck.
Speaker 3 (32:54):
Trump is building our economy and returning businesses to America
through tariffs. That is the other example that forgot to mention.
That's one of the biggest problems. What if you're a
company that has already you know, bought the land or
broken ground or dedicated forty million dollars to building a
plant because you just decided, well, the only way I'm
(33:16):
going to be able to compete is bring the plant
here back to the United States, here in Indiana instead
of in Mexico or whatever.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
But the new terrorists blah blah.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Blah like like was the point of the tariffs for Trump,
and then they become it turns out they're illegal, and.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
Your competitor didn't do that. Oh that I would. I
would say, friend, that we're not the ones that suck.
Certainly at making arguments. You just excused a democratic far
left president from doing anything they want, exceeding their constitutional
powers if their goal is noble. That's not the way
it works. Brother or sister or neither or both. So
(33:51):
the thing these days.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Got a joke to play for you from Greg Guttfeld
last night. This is a pretty damned edgy joke I did.
I guess it took a quarter of a century before
you can make this sort of joke. You'll get it
when you go ahead through.
Speaker 8 (34:06):
Since Zo ran one, there have already been a few
minor changes to the city. And get this, and get this,
LaGuardia Airport will now be offering direct flights into the
Freedom Tower.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Oh, it's a joke. It's a joke. That's an edgy joke.
That's an edgy joke in New York. I got Ramba. Yeah,
isn't it something?
Speaker 3 (34:40):
Though, it's like other than that, how did you like
to play missus Lincoln? I mean, after a certain amount
of time, a gruesome tragedy becomes something you can joke about.
But it takes a certain amount of time. I'd say
with nine eleven it took like two decades. Yeah, that's
a joke, but not a funny one. It's a surprising
(35:03):
one and a shocking one. It's making a statement that
that joke was a statement that many of us are
highly concerned that someone who appears to be an out
and out Islamist is sympathetic to the people who did
what they did on nine to eleven. Right, almost impossible
(35:24):
to believe that he wasn't happy about that.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
What nine to eleven? Yeah, it was a tiny child.
He would at his house he felt like, said, oh yeah,
if he felt like he was safe, he would explain
to you how the colonial oppressor US got would it deserved? Yeah, yeah,
So he'd mentioned this during the week.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
Tesla's shareholders did approve that record setting pay package for
Elon Musk, granting him one trillion dollars an additional stock
if he hit certain milestone, the biggest package anybody's ever
had out there as a bonus package. And I heard
a bunch of communists yesterday arguing about then. And yet
(36:09):
people are hungry in the streets.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
You know that. Shut up commies. I think that, honestly,
that amazing amount of money obscures the more significant development,
which is they have embraced Elon turning Tesla into a
robotics company an AI shut Com, Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com